Atlast Shrugged IRL: Connecticuit

[jonks]

Eskimospy is silly. Where is Wall St. bud? Of course they only lost 9% of their millionaires compared to the national average of 14%. Those fuckers got bailed out by the government. There are more millionaires in NY that are hedgefund managers and deal with financials than the rest of the country where most millionaires are most likely small business owners. Big difference between a banker skimming money off the top then being bailed out for being "to big to fail" and some poor machine shop getting shut down because the government really doesn't give a shit.

BTW I don't need to post any evidence to back my shit up. Just do a search on these forums, we've had threads saying that the bankers are getting richers while everyone else gets poorer. We've already had threads that talk about all the bullshit fees and negative-wealth creation these asshole leeches create. We've already had threads on this stuff.

So can you prove to me otherwise, that this isn't the case? I'm not exactly going to trust data from the same people who have been lying to us for at least as many years as I have been alive.

lulz abound

 

[bfdd]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...wall-street-dominates-the-rest-of-us-suffer/#

over 1/4th of Forbes 400 richest are into finance.... you know the 0 wealth creation industry. those guys reside on Wall St. Where is Wall St. again and which State saw a smaller than national average(by 5&#37 of decline in millionaires?

 

[werepossum]

I didn't realize it either until I did a bit of reading following up on QuantumPion's link. It's very rare that politicians will vote to give themselves less power that they should definitely be applauded when they do it for the right reasons.

Agree completely.

 

[jonks]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...wall-street-dominates-the-rest-of-us-suffer/#

over 1/4th of Forbes 400 richest are into finance.... you know the 0 wealth creation industry. those guys reside on Wall St. Where is Wall St. again and which State saw a smaller than national average(by 5%) of decline in millionaires?

so what are you arguing, that millionaires left because of the millionaire tax or didn't leave because of the millionaire tax?

(as my math is rusty but isn't 1/4 of 400 = 100? 100 people?)

 

[bfdd]

I'm saying millionaires are so fucking rich in Wall St. that they don't really care. They aren't wealth creators, they aren't creating jobs, etc etc. The people who are leaving are the other millionaires, the ones who are contributing because it is far more expensive to contribute shit to society than it is to just leech and skim off the top.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...wall-street-dominates-the-rest-of-us-suffer/#

over 1/4th of Forbes 400 richest are into finance.... you know the 0 wealth creation industry. those guys reside on Wall St. Where is Wall St. again and which State saw a smaller than national average(by 5%) of decline in millionaires?

This is my problem with capital gains tax rates. Seems to me that the original intent for lowering capital gains tax rates - to spur growth via stock purchases - has been largely replaced with zero wealth growth transactions. There is a case to be made for low capital gains tax rates because the money is being double taxed (gotta pay taxes on it before you can invest it) for basic fairness, but there is also a case to be made that investing one's money should not be favored above investing one's labor for basic fairness. Increasingly I find myself favoring the latter over the former.

Making things made this country great, not finance and stock transactions. I very much prefer a nation organized around making things, with the accompanying benefits to the middle and working classes (largely the same class in America), to a nation organized around high value but zero wealth production finance and similar trading which stratifies wealth by reducing the value of labor. And reducing the value of labor in a representative republic will inevitably result in the majority voting to empower government to redistribute the wealthy's earned wealth into their own pockets, which in turn inevitably reduces freedom and decreases society's total wealth.

 

[jonks]

I'm saying millionaires are so fucking rich in Wall St. that they don't really care. They aren't wealth creators, they aren't creating jobs, etc etc. The people who are leaving are the other millionaires, the ones who are contributing because it is far more expensive to contribute shit to society than it is to just leech and skim off the top.

As they say, cool story.

Not only do you claim millionaires are leaving NY because of the millionaire tax, but you specify which millionaires are leaving. Even though you cited to more millionaires leaving other states that don't have such a tax at a faster rate. Impressive gymnastics.

BTW I don't need to post any evidence to back my shit up.

I'd never condescend to ask.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I can't even decipher what you're trying to say. Try again, this time in English.

If money necessarily makes one run from places of higher taxation to one of lower, then everybody with money must end up in Somalia, where there is no government to tax.

So prove that everybody has moved to Somalia to "keep der moneez."

Oh gee darn, you can't.
So stop using stupid models.
Also, try to keep up.

 

[QuantumPion]

Making things made this country great, not finance and stock transactions.

You can't make things if you can't raise investor money to build a factory.

 

[QuantumPion]

If money necessarily makes one run from places of higher taxation to one of lower, then everybody with money must end up in Somalia, where there is no government to tax.

So prove that everybody has moved to Somalia to "keep der moneez."

Oh gee darn, you can't.
So stop using stupid models.
Also, try to keep up.

Christ how many times does this meme have to get posted here and be refuted? It's gotta be some sort of troll conspiracy.

 

[fskimospy]

You're still wrong. How does one calculate a rate? The study in question took survey data regarding population collected at discrete time points, then applied a finite difference to estimate the rate of change in population with time. That's not a data point or anything else - it's a reduced variable with implicit assumptions that you either don't understand or would love to sweep under the rug. You keep using this crude estimate as an argument (or, in your mind, an unassailable "data point"):

Point being, it's not a statement of fact. You were railing about everyone trying to base their positions on "evidence" which was not the result of statistically significant regression. Well, you've done the same damn thing. The rates described are simply linear effect estimates based on spotty data - hardly the same thing as immutable fact. You just don't understand what has been done, so you assume that the study's findings are correct when it suits you and infeasible in other cases. That makes you both ignorant and a hypocrite.

Hahaha, nice. So now you're admitting that you didn't even read what you were trying to critique.

In addition, you've returned to your tried and tested method of argument that involves completely inventing positions out of thin air for me to hold. I asked for statistically significant correlation between variables to provide evidence for causation. Not only have I not made a single argument of causation in this thread, but if you had even bothered to read my posts here you would have seen me dismiss the exact evidence you think I'm using hypocritically due to temporal ordering problems.

Jesus christ man, I'm trying to help you here. You don't read my posts, you don't read the source material. I mean you still think that the 9% and 14% numbers came from some conclusion in the study you've never read.

Your argument is based around that I said 'fact' when I should have said 'data'. In my post it was quite clear that I was referring to data, which requires no correlative support (since it just exists) and a hypothesis which does. (which was the entire point of the discussion to begin with) This might require the use of 'context' that you were recently such a fan of however.

This entire stupid shit show comes from you being so desperate to get someone else that you forgot to turn on your brain. Using a study's own dataset to disprove its claim is not the same thing as blindly accepting another study's data that gives you a desired conclusion. This is not a difficult concept to understand, but it probably comes from the fact that you haven't read a single fucking thing on this subject. This is the last time I'm going to do it.

 

[evident]

is atlas shrugged becoming the latest political meme?

 

[werepossum]

You can't make things if you can't raise investor money to build a factory.

True. As I said, I can see both sides, but it does seem like more and more capital gains is applied to things that produce no societal wealth.

 

[CycloWizard]

If money necessarily makes one run from places of higher taxation to one of lower, then everybody with money must end up in Somalia, where there is no government to tax.

So prove that everybody has moved to Somalia to "keep der moneez."

Oh gee darn, you can't.
So stop using stupid models.
Also, try to keep up.

Go back to your cave and keep studying Engrish and math until you can figure out what the big boys are talking about here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Hahaha, nice. So now you're admitting that you didn't even read what you were trying to critique.

In addition, you've returned to your tried and tested method of argument that involves completely inventing positions out of thin air for me to hold. I asked for statistically significant correlation between variables to provide evidence for causation. Not only have I not made a single argument of causation in this thread, but if you had even bothered to read my posts here you would have seen me dismiss the exact evidence you think I'm using hypocritically due to temporal ordering problems.

Jesus christ man, I'm trying to help you here. You don't read my posts, you don't read the source material. I mean you still think that the 9% and 14% numbers came from some conclusion in the study you've never read.

Your argument is based around that I said 'fact' when I should have said 'data'. In my post it was quite clear that I was referring to data, which requires no correlative support (since it just exists) and a hypothesis which does. (which was the entire point of the discussion to begin with) This might require the use of 'context' that you were recently such a fan of however.

This entire stupid shit show comes from you being so desperate to get someone else that you forgot to turn on your brain. Using a study's own dataset to disprove its claim is not the same thing as blindly accepting another study's data that gives you a desired conclusion. This is not a difficult concept to understand, but it probably comes from the fact that you haven't read a single fucking thing on this subject. This is the last time I'm going to do it.

You're an idiot. You think a linearized trend is simply data and avoids any analysis. I already pointed out why you're wrong, and you simply stated that you're not wrong. Well, that doesn't really pass muster - you're still wrong. The linearized time series of data is a regression model in and of itself, just as the data have associated uncertainties. By your standard, it's not evidence of anything. The fact that you don't understand that "data" are not immutable is simply proof that you don't understand anything about data collection. That you think rates are perfectly accurate raw data means you should have stayed in school a bit longer. That you repeatedly make these arguments even after I explain it means that either I'm a bad teacher or you're an idiot. Since I am paid large sums of money to teach this stuff, I'll assume it's the latter and bid you good day sir.

 

[fskimospy]

You're an idiot. You think a linearized trend is simply data and avoids any analysis. I already pointed out why you're wrong, and you simply stated that you're not wrong. Well, that doesn't really pass muster - you're still wrong. The linearized time series of data is a regression model in and of itself, just as the data have associated uncertainties. By your standard, it's not evidence of anything. The fact that you don't understand that "data" are not immutable is simply proof that you don't understand anything about data collection. That you think rates are perfectly accurate raw data means you should have stayed in school a bit longer. That you repeatedly make these arguments even after I explain it means that either I'm a bad teacher or you're an idiot. Since I am paid large sums of money to teach this stuff, I'll assume it's the latter and bid you good day sir.

I have no idea if you're a bad teacher or not, as you haven't actually taught anything, but you're certainly a horrible 'teacher' in terms of being able to read and interpret ideas. If you're the part of any university faculty they would be ashamed of your behavior, as it's clear that you've allowed emotion to cloud reason and basic reading comprehension. You're so academically unserious as to attempt to critique things you've never read, and you have repeatedly make hilariously wrong assumptions about topics which you then try and ignore like it never happened in order to win on the internet.

Quite a professor you are.

Once again you invent things for other people to say after you've lost previous arguments, and you're desperately trying to ignore inconvenient realities. Nowhere did I claim that rates are perfectly accurate raw data (made up, bizarre claim by you), nowhere did I state that data was immutable (that's a laugher), and all this because you keep trying to insist I am promoting data that in the very first post I brought up I said I thought was crap.

I'm sure you will once again try to invent new positions for me to hold so that you can tilt against that windmill as well, because you can't win against my actual argument. I can only assume this is why you ignore it over and over and over again. I hope for your students' sake that you are better off the internet than on.

 

[fskimospy]

As an interesting addition, I just have to ask you Professor Cyclowizard, what do you even think my argument is? I feel like it's important to know just how poor your reading comprehension is, because I have a feeling like you might be in the need of some English classes at your university.

 

[irwincur]

Looters.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Go back to your cave and keep studying Engrish and math until you can figure out what the big boys are talking about here.

Do better. You are not worth my effort if what you've put forth so far is the best you can do.
Take it step by step through both sides and work out for yourself how you're a dumbass.